Good. They can leave.
And, no, subsidizing discrimination with the tax dollars of the very people they are discriminating against is NOT GOOD ENOUGH.
Gays do not want to force the Boy Scouts to accept them - but they will fight their tax dollars be used to actively discriminate against them.

It's really NOT that outrageous.

Oh yes, because being held to the same law as everyone else is such a good reason to take your toys and not play anymore.

My name is Idealogically Promiscuous and I approved this message.

You claim "private and public groups 'discriminate' on those terms every day in this country", but then the examples you give are NOT "on those terms".

You give examples of places ACCOMMODATING religions, but not DISCRIMINATING on the basis of religion.

Cases in point, are Christians forbidden from eating in the cafeteria?
If not, the example is moot. Just because the cafeteria adjusts its times to help accommodate others doesn't mean discrimination.

Are only the Catholics allowed to eat fish? Cause if the atheists and jews can eat the fish too, then it's not discrimination.

And the money that is given to these businesses in exchange for services, is it at a REASONABLE price, or at a SUBSIDY price? (Or, in this case are the food service organizations paid MORE than they would be in a competitive market.)
Cause nobody is saying the Boy Scouts can't rent and discriminate.
They can't rent, discriminate, AND get subsidized.

Here we are talking about the government GIVING MONEY to a group that DISCRIMINATES against gays and atheists. Quite frankly, to some degree I think their discrimination on the basis of religion is more lasting in its impact across the states in the country, cause not all states have laws prohibiting discrimination against gays.

Giving money at REASONABLE PRICES in exchange for a service to a group that ACCOMMODATES (and note, that's NOT the same thing as "subsidy" either) is not the same thing as subsidizing a group that discriminates.

I see two major differences in your examples which essentially makes them moot.


Again, it's not the exclusion that is at issue.
It is the SUBSIDY.

If these organizations that discriminate want to rent, they should do it as the same price as the rest of us.


I would love to see an open discussion on that. Possibly a public poll.
I think it's blown way out of proportion.

There is a fundamental, underlying concept of fairness that is being applied here.
Just because the Boy Scouts have to pay the REGULAR price doesn't mean anything other than they've been given a helping hand that they don't deserve.
And I think one of the REAL questions that should be asked out of this, doing damage to the Boy Scouts, is how much more interested they are in discriminating than in helping others.
Cause the decision for them to pay regular price is REALLY made by straight people. Gays only make 5% of the population.
Trying to pin this on gays is absurd.

It sounds like you are saying that the city should just blindly accept discrimination because a group does good. I don't think that this is right or fair.

I recognize that this is a slippery slope arguement, but I'll throw it out anyway... What if the KKK has a 'youth group' that did good for the community but excluded young people of ethnic origin? Is doing good for the majority an acceptable reason to turn a blind eye to something that CLEARLY goes against established law?

The Boy Scouts don't discriminate in the terms you guys are implying. They may be discerning in their judgment, but according to the court they do not discriminate in the fashion you are implying (Equal Rights for All).
They are not a White Supremest organization ( who I think are allowed to exist on the same basis as the Scouts, that is : may not be your cup of tea, but not an infringement having a club that excludes minorities.
Now, when WS's go into town and threaten Spanish and Black people they are infringing on the rights of others as far as equality is concerned. This is just an extreme example, but you see my point.

Yes, if the Philadelphia's have made their own little city law about discrimination, I guess they have made their own little interpretation. The reason I use the word 'little' is that that law could have been so much more to ALL the people of Philadelphia. I don't know how you cannot see this.
Yes, by their interpretation of that law, they have every right to charge what they want within the city guidelines. But this may indeed touch on one of the things the Boy Scouts tries to instill. Doing what is honorable. Honor societies and scholarly groups also look to do the most good for all, not just a pissed off few.

__________________
Frugal tip: To keep potatoes from budding, place an apple in the bag with the potatoes.

How to Fold a Shirt

Salty's Blog

Absolutely not...(and I was waiting for someone to make this comparison...trustan almost did)...

The term "discrimination" has conveniently swirled from "directly attacking" to "complicit non-approval"...

And that's the difference between the klan and the Scouts...

The klan doesn't approve of a group people ..The Scouts don't approve of a group of people...

But what the klan does that the Scounts don't is ACTIVELY denounce that group while teaching and propagandizing that hate towards the group by direct or indirect means...

The Scouts are the EXACT OPPOSITE of that!...

The Scouts say "no gays"...But you DON'T hear "Gays are less than human"...Gays are an abomination to society!"...

They don't have bullsessions where they say..."Listen up kids...Today we're going to talk about gays and how bad they are."

That's not a part of their program...

But that's done in the klan every single day...It's their whole reason to exist...

It's as simple as the Scouts' own words...

Now when was the last time you saw a statement like THAT from the klan?...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

Entirely incorrect.

Discrimination has always also included EXCLUSION.

The WHITES ONLY policy of Jim Crow is a good example of this.

I am not implying what you think I am implying.
I am talking about exactly what cnredd admitted to in a later statement.

cnredd: The Scouts say "no gays"...

That is the only form of "discrimination" I am talking about.


Let me try to be clear about some things that I may not have said in a while.

1) The Boy Scouts do discriminate in that they do not allow gay scouts / scout leaders, but this discrimination is entirely legal. It is not an "infringement".

2) This is also entirely within their rights, as the freedom of association of our constitution demands.

3) I whole-heartedly support both of the above.

The REAL issue at the heart of this, which has been repeated a few times, is the following:
A) The government in question is not allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. I see no dispute on this.

B) As an obvious and logical extension of that, the government is not allowed to "give" money (in subsidies) to organizations that DO discriminate.
If they were allowed to do so, that would obviously represent governmental discrimination which would violate the law.


Snide commentary on the law, while NO discussion on the interpretation actually takes place, is meaningless.

What I really see this boiling down to is that some people don't like the Boy Scouts being held to the legal / constitutional standard by which they cannot discriminate and receive subsidies.

Quite frankly, TO DATE I have not seen any argument as to WHY the law prohibiting any organization which discriminates from receiving subsidies.
I think that's a rather significant aspect of this discussion.


I really don't even have a clue as to what you're talking about.
Quite frankly, the Philly government has been giving the Boy Scouts "money" via subsidies.
Now, they are no longer doing so.
They are no longer doing so because the government is not allowed to subsidize organizations that discriminate.

I don't have any idea what you are thinking I do not "see".
I see that you don't like the fact that the Boy Scouts are now paying full price instead of a subsidized price.

I see that the Boy Scouts are making as much of a choice to discriminate as Philly is making the choice to make them pay full rent.
I see the REASON BEHIND Philly's decision. It's a common sense issue of fairness with regard to taxation and discrimination.

If the Boy Scouts decide that they want to discriminate more than they want to help others, shouldn't that be held against them just as much as you are holding it against Philly?




Why should I pay tax dollars to help support an organization that discriminates against me?
Where is the honor in that?

Quite frankly, making the Boy Scouts pay the price tag they should have been paying all along is not "dishonorable".
It may be something you don't like, but that doesn't make it "dishonorable".


Ridiculously false.
It's funny how I don't want my tax dollars going to an organization which discriminates against me, and that gets "swirled" into a claim of wanting "approval".

Quite frankly, these lame, repetitive, and thoroughly inaccurate claims that it's about "approval" amount to some people being incapable of arguing the ACTUAL issue at hand, so they try to pretend that the situation is something that it is not.


Riddle me this.
How does including gays demonstrate "approval"?

My employer employees gays. Does that mean they "approve" of gays?
If you allow gays on your message board, does that mean you "approve" of gays or homosexuality?

No, and no.
There is a difference between "tolerance" and "approval".